Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File ^1901 <br />January 14. 1994 <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />the southeast comer ot the Coffin property where the reteotion/treatment pond is located risht <br />at the edge of the wetland. Engineer notes that this would be a logical location for the pond <br />which will function to protect the wetland tn>ni sediment deposition and would appear to satisfy <br />some ot the necessary findings tor granting variances to encroachment of a wetland as follows: <br />1. Would proposal be consistent with the objectives cf encouraging land uses <br />compatible with the preservation of the natural landfonns. vegetation and the <br />marshes and wetlands.’ <br />2. Would proposal include development of land and water areas es.sential to continue <br />the temporary withholding ot rapid runott of surface w'ater whi::h would create <br />downstream flooding or pollution.’ The Planning Commission should make a <br />recommendation concerning this encroachment. <br />Review Exhibit J. The City Engineer ’s preliminary' report asks that all mitigation areas <br />also be designated with drainage easements. This would not be consistent with Council ’s <br />directive. Surveyor should be asked if this will have an impact on dry buildable of each let. <br />Parks, Trails, Park Dedication <br />Please review the Park Commission minutes of Thursday, January 6, 1994. Exhibit H. <br />The Park Commission reviewed the most recent plan for the first stage of development of the <br />Dickey/Coffin property. The developer advised they have been unable to find any conclusive <br />evidence or supponive documentation that would identify the property as having historical <br />significance. Mn/DOT has hired a consultant who is working closely with the Indian Council <br />to determine if the site has some significance requiring preservation but the process will take a <br />few months and may not be resolved until May of 1994. If it is found that there is no historical <br />significance, the property will be developed as a single family lot. <br />The park outlet is located within the first phase development and may have to be <br />removed from the first phase if developer wishes to proceed with construction by June of ’94. <br />The Park Commission did not seek any additional area for neighborhood parks and appeared to <br />encourage the installation of private interior trails. Staff advised applicant that interior trails <br />devoted to pedestrian or vehicular access would have to be excluded from dry' buildable area of <br />lot. The City only allows credit for the trails adjacent to road right-of-ways that share the 10' <br />drainage and utility easements that run along the sides of public roads. <br />Both Park Commission and Engineer ask that developer define the location of trail along <br />Old Crystal Bay Road and install as part of the site development. Staff will seek direction from <br />Park Commission concerning park dedication fee. There will be no credit for lands used for Old <br />Crystal Bay Trail. The issue of whether the interior trails will be public or private will have <br />an impact on the area consideration for park dedication. Staff will have to get further direction <br />from Park Commission concerning the cost to the developer for installing 'rail and if that would <br />have any impact on park dedication fee.